On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Dehler, Bernie
<bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
> If William Lane Craig accepted the evidence from DNA for the biological
> evolution of apelike creature to human, then why would he be "undecided" on
> the issue of whether evolution happened?
>
The article barely gets in to WLC's personal beliefs - but let's have a
fresh look at what WLC says in that very article.
"Since I think, for the reasons explained in the podcast, that an
evolutionary theory is compatible with the biblical account in Genesis 1,
the question of biological origins is for me a straightforward scientific
question: what does the evidence indicate about the means by which God
brought about life and biological complexity? My honest, layman's assessment
of the evidence makes me sceptical of the neo-Darwinian account and leaves
me with a probing agnosticism about the theory."
So, he's saying outright that an evolutionary theory is compatible with
Genesis 1. He said that his assessment of the data - as an admitted layman -
makes him skeptical of the neo-Darwinian account, and his position is one of
agnosticism. There's some subtler issues to consider here, but I'll explain
that below.
> In my experience, the biggest roadblock to accepting evolution is accepting
> the biological origins of humans from lower animals, rather than creation by
> fiat. In my experience, once this step of evolution is accepted, the whole
> ball of wax can be swallowed. Accepting the evolution of human from
> ape-like animal is a watershed event. Evidently, he hasn't accepted it
> yet. Once he does, it will affect all of his theology and interpretation
> for Genesis, and how to interpret the New Testament which refers to
> Genesis. Maybe that consequence is too much for him to deal with… resulting
> in loss of job and ministry. By being non-committal he can stick to
> "traditional theology" and play it safe with he current Christian masses.
>
Oddly enough, I think the view you're giving here is older and out of touch.
Michael Denton accepts CD, but still has considerable problems with
neo-darwinism. Michael Behe is in the same position. Mike Gene (hey, he's a
prominent ID proponent after all) is entirely accepting of much of
neo-darwinism as near as I can tell, yet has a perspective that intuits
teleology in natural processes, mechanisms, and even materials.
Front-loading is a concept that gets plenty of play in ID circles - maybe
even TE circles - but which has some fundamental conflicts with the
philosophical end of darwinism at the very least.
In other words - it doesn't seem to be a watershed event in the way you're
saying. Not anymore. You can accept 'biological origins of humans from lower
animals' and still have reasons to suspect that evolution-as-described is
not the whole story, or is inadequate. Considering that even mainstream
scientists can and do argue about particular details of evolution, even
while agreeing on the overall story (Gould's fight with Dawkins is one
example of this. Group selection is another. The relevance and possibility
of epigenetics, yet another.), it's not surprising that objections to
neo-darwinism no longer need to pivot on 'either evolution happened or it
didn't'. It's a new dispute, in many ways, and more complicated and nuanced
perspectives are on the rise.
Also, I'm not that interested in psychoanalyzing WLC to know his 'real'
thoughts and motivations. But we can certainly look at what he's said: If
he's 'trying to play it safe', he's doing a poor job of it: He spends time
arguing that evolutionary theory is entirely compatible with Christianity,
and Genesis 1 in particular (do the Christians you have in mind often argue
this?). He draws a line between the issues of evolutionary-extrapolations
and common descent, then goes on to approvingly quote Behe all while
pointing out Behe accepts CD (again, would those Christians feel this
comfortable with Behe's position, or with WLC's distinction?) His theme
throughout the entire article is not one of rejecting neo-darwinism,
certainly not evolution, but of being skeptical and careful on this issue,
and encouraging investigation.
If a mainstream, oft-quoted, well-known Christian apologist taking this
position leads to anything but however qualified praise from TEs, something
really is wrong, in my opinion - but the problem doesn't lie with WLC.
> Maybe calling him a coward (when it comes to accepting/promoting evolution)
> is the wrong thing- maybe the right word is a diplomat or politician…
> reminds me of this quote:
>
Hardly seems appropriate to WLC, given what he's said on this issue. If your
problem with him comes down to suspected personal motivations and
psychoanalyzing, I don't know what to say. Especially when his actual
commentary flies in the face of the conclusion.
>
>
> Heya Bernie,
>
> It is fine to be moderate as long as the evidence isn't in… but when the
> evidence is in, it is a matter of being wrong when trying to be moderate.
> When the evidence comes in, it is time for taking sides. The only reason to
> stay moderate in the face of the evidence is because of fear- fear of being
> rejected by some (or much of the faithful). The evidence for evolution from
> apelike creature to man is overwhelming, in my opinion (pseudogenes and
> fused human chromosome #2). This is no time to be moderate, in my opinion,
> when one wants to be on the leading edge of apologetics- esp. to a skeptical
> and atheist audience.
>
> But where did WLC oppose 'the evolution from apelike creature to man',
> even in the article presented? The only place where he specifically
> referenced human origins is here: "The transition from lower primates to
> humans is nothing compared to what the theory postulates on the grand
> scale." In other words, the bulk of the skepticism he displays here has
> nothing to do with the specific issue of apelike-to-human transition.
>
> What's more, WLC could accept the apelike-to-human transition personally -
> and still have serious doubts about evolution, at least in the orthodox
> sense. Denton is a great example of this that Timaeus has been talking
> about. Behe as well accepts common descent and biological precursors of that
> kind, and clearly Behe has (however misguided some may judge him on this
> point) considerable problems with what he views as the standard evolutionary
> scenario.
>
> Further, let's get this out in the open. I do believe it's important, very
> important, for skeptics, agnostics, and atheists to be reached out to by
> Christians. I personally am a TE, though I keep the door open to ID
> possibilities outside the realm of science, and find the larger ID movement
> to be pretty encouraging in many respects. But if the desire is to make
> Christianity respectable in the eyes of atheists and skeptics, guess what?
> It's not going to happen. And not because Christianity or even some
> skepticism about origins is necessarily irrational, but because the
> respectability of Christianity is not now and has never been the central
> concern.
>
>
> Yes- William Lane Craig addresses biological evolution, but it seems like
> it only when asked. Other than that, he tries to avoid or circumvent the
> discussion. I find that reprehensible for a person who wants to be on the
> cutting edge of apologetics. And he certainly claims to be in harmony with
> modern science, so there's no way for anyone to accept scientific ignorance
> on his part because he's "only a philosopher"- he doesn't claim to be "only
> a philosopher."
>
> Bernie, look at what you've said here. First WLC was a coward because you
> claim he never touches on the question of evolution. Now you're implying
> he's a coward because he does touch on the question - but only when asked.
> Sorry, this doesn't fly. Not when he's just finished up a podcast where he
> discusses evolution - he didn't get blindsided at a conference and end up
> discussing it because he was put on the spot. Not when he just posted an
> article on his own site where he talks about the issue in broad detail, and
> he's entirely free to field whatever questions he likes. Not when he defends
> Christianity's compatibility with evolutionary theory, and not when the
> principal author he quotes with regards to skepticism about orthodox
> evolutionary theory is, of all people, Michael Denton.
>
> You may as well argue that Francis Collins is a coward and scientifically
> ignorant, on the grounds that he's not nearly active enough on this question
> and due to his expressing skepticism about evolutionary explanations for
> altruism.
>
>
> Anyway, if a philosopher is scientifically ignorant, their philosophy
> will be in error. Philosophy is human logic/reason based on facts, so
> awareness of all scientific facts is a foundation for philosophy.
>
>
> This is a tremendous oversimplification of philosophy, and flat out wrong
> in many instances.
>
> Anyway, I think the reaction some are having to WLC is ludicrous. Has it
> really come to the point where entertaining and encouraging some limited
> skepticism about orthodox evolutionary claims - *even while asserting that
> orthodox evolutionary theory poses no threat to Christianity* - is
> reprehensible and cowardly? Sorry - I think this attitude is vastly more
> harmful to Christian ministry and relations in general. I believe the
> primary concern of TEs should be in explaining to people why TE is an
> acceptable position for a Christian to hold, why TE does not rule out
> design, and generally making information on evolution available. Not being
> overly upset because somewhere out there may be Christians (some or many)
> who hold opinions contrary to scientific orthodoxy.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 13 21:03:10 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 13 2008 - 21:03:10 EST